My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

No, it was Eris, she only made it look like it was the Space Hamsters from Alpha Centauri.

Actually it was Loki who make it look like Eris making it look like the Space Hamsters.

 

[Vene]

Actually it was Loki who make it look like Eris making it look like the Space Hamsters.

Loki is just Eris in another culture.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Loki is just Eris in another culture.

That's what they want you to think...

 

[sbvera13]

AFAIK there is no evidence to suggest that mass and/or energy have ever failed to exist, thus there is no reason for it to need to appear.

 

[rjw]

So far, I take it this thread should be empty.

So far I presume, any explanation that anyone gave is good. Because no evidence is needed in your "challenges" - anything goes?


Regards, Roland

 

[IrishRockhound]

This is why when anyone other than a Christian says it, it's not challenged; but when a Christian (or worse, a creationist) says it, it's automatically wrong.

AV, you're not being victimised. There is no conspiracy against the poor widdle Christians of the world; stop insinuating that there is.

This is one thing I've learned about how "scientists" think. Only they are qualified to speak for reality. They will tell us where the boundaries are, and nature-forbid that the Bible should say otherwise.

Quite frankly, of course scientists are the ones to speak on the nature of reality. We study it every day. We spend our lives learning about it and developing theories on why it acts the way it does, and if you look past your blinkered biblical horizons, you will see that many respected scientists happen to be Christian or Buddhist or Islamic or whatever. Religion only gets in the way of science when people like you force it to - it obviously doesn't have to if so many people happily do science and still go to church on Sunday.

You and every creationist I've ever seen has proven time and time again that what you know about actual science wouldn't fill a teacup. So if you don't mind, you will be told by us what is and what is not, as it is reflected in our research. Maybe this is an argument from authority, but let's face it - the scientists who study a particular field are more likely to be right about that field than some random un-scientifically-educated Christian.

You don't get to force your pet book into science, AV. You don't get special treatment. I've said as much before - science is brutal, cruel and relentless. The bible was tried, tested and found wanting by science a long time ago, and no amount of belief on your part or 'looking' on the part of creationists will change that.

IRH

 

[AV1611VET]

AFAIK there is no evidence to suggest that mass and/or energy have ever failed to exist, thus there is no reason for it to need to appear.

So you're saying the universe is? Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

[bible]Exodus 3:14[/bible]

 

[quatona]

So you're saying the universe is?

No he was not saying this. I am inclined to think he picked the precise wording that he picked for a reason, and simply making something else of it doesn´t do justice to his statement.

 

[talkingmonkey]

[bible]Exodus 3:14[/bible]

What does that even mean?

The fact that you have brought forth yet another quote said by an anonymous thing thousands of years ago in Latin does not give it precedence over years of legions of physicist's research into the beginning of the Universe.

And should someone actually present a research laden and well presented paper on the beginning of the Universe, they may well be one of the most intelligent people on the Planet.
So, give us time.

 

[AV1611VET]

And should someone actually present a research laden and well presented paper on the beginning of the Universe, they may well be one of the most intelligent people on the Planet.

But in the meantime, it's okay for atheists to say God definitely didn't do it, right? Incidentally, would you like to see a well-presented paper on the beginning of the Universe, Monkey? Here ya go:

[bible]Genesis 1:1-31[/bible]

Feel free to quote it --- God didn't copyright His work.

So, give us time.

Keep looking.

 

[talkingmonkey]

But in the meantime, it's okay for atheists to say God definitely didn't do it, right? Incidentally, would you like to see a well-resented paper on the beginning of the Universe, Monkey? Here ya go:

[bible]Genesis 1:1-31[/bible]

Feel free to quote it --- God didn't copyright His work.



Keep looking.

It certainly is a well-resented paper on the beginning of the Universe

 

[talkingmonkey]

Well, apart from some fanatic aethiests, most will not say that God definately didn't do it...

But we can give thousands of well-researched and proven papers/journals/essays/reference pieces and the like stating that using all scientific data collected (and yes - for you fundys to get all giggly about - theories developed) so far that God didn't do it...

If it was proved, without a doubt using sound, objective evidence that God definately didn't do it, then religion would collapse.

Well, maybe not. The proof that God doesn't exist may be God's final test of faith....ya know, like Dinosaur bones and such...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But in the meantime, it's okay for atheists to say God definitely didn't do it, right? Incidentally, would you like to see a well-resented paper on the beginning of the Universe, Monkey? Here ya go:

Pity you hardly understand any of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It certainly is a well-resented paper on the beginning of the Universe

Of course it is --- it states emphatically how the universe got started. It doesn't dance around and hide behind "thousands of well-researched and proven papers/journals/essays/reference pieces and the like."

 

[AV1611VET]

Pity you hardly understand any of it.

Judging from the "answers" to my OP, I'm not alone.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Judging from the "answers" to my OP, I'm not alone.

No, really I mean it. You miss a whole lot of beauty.

 

[Psudopod]

Of course it is --- it states emphatically how the universe got started. It doesn't dance around and hide behind "thousands of well-researched and proven papers/journals/essays/reference pieces and the like."

Oh course it's emphatic, it's a religeous text. It is also useless for understanding the univers. Understanding that God created, maybe, but absolutely useless for understanding how he did.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

First appeared? Are you asking for yet another ex nihilo?

I don't believe in any "first appeared", since that would imply a time in which nothing led to something.

IMV, there has always been a something. There may have been an initial something, but it did not "appear" out of nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

[/size][/font]

Oh course it's emphatic, it's a religeous text. It is also useless for understanding the univers. Understanding that God created, maybe, but absolutely useless for understanding how he did.

God created the earth and turned it over to us to use science to our advantage. That science He gave us is not meant to be used against Him. Therefore, I would expect any attempts to find God via scientific means to be unfruitful. This is why, in my opinion, no amount of searching is going to "dig up" anything. Trying to find God with electronic gadgetry is like trying to find a rubber ball with a magnet.

 

[AV1611VET]

IMV, there has always been a something. There may have been an initial something, but it did not "appear" out of nothing.

Which is it?